Is it voter fraud or voter suppression?

By RON DAVISFrom the Center

Published: Sunday, May 4, 2014 at 4:30 a.m.

Last Modified: Friday, May 2, 2014 at 4:07 p.m.

Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was overwhelmingly reauthorized for a period of 25 years in 2006 by a Republican-controlled Congress, based on thousands of pages of testimony and supporting documentation. The reauthorization was proudly signed into law by President George W. Bush.

This section required certain states, including North Carolina, to get “preclearance” from a federal court in Washington, D.C., before implementing changes to its voting laws.

In June 2013, the conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court voted 5-4 in the case of Shelby v. Holder to rule that the “coverage formula” of Section 4(b) was outdated and unconstitutional.

On Aug. 12, 2013, less than two months after the Shelby decision, North Carolina enacted 49 pages of sweeping changes to its voting laws, parts of which some have called some of the most restrictive voting laws in the country. Although the law is frequently called a voter ID law and is touted as a law to prevent voter fraud, it covers much more than voter IDs and imposes restrictions on voting that have nothing to do with voter fraud.

Since 2010, similar laws have become pervasive in states where there is a Republican governor and a Republican-controlled legislature, particularly in states that were not covered by Section 4(b). Here are just a few of many examples:

In June 2012, the Republican majority leader of the Pennsylvania House proudly proclaimed that the voter ID law passed earlier that year would allow Gov. Mitt Romney to take Pennsylvania. That law was blocked from taking effect for the 2012 election and earlier this year was struck down by a Commonwealth court, stating that it placed heavy burdens on the elderly, the disabled and the poor and that the state failed to support its allegations of voter fraud with evidence of actual voter fraud.

Florida was notorious for long voting lines in 2012 due to shortened early voting, excessively long ballots and other legislatively imposed restrictions. It took hours to vote. A Nov. 25, 2012, article in The Palm Beach Post quoted Florida GOP officials and consultants who admitted that reducing early voting days was designed to target Democratic voters.

Florida Republican Gov. Rick Scott signed a bill in May 2013 that reversed many of his own 2011 election laws. It restored early voting days, expanded hours and polling places, allowed early voting on the Sunday before the election and limited ballot lengths. Could that be because Scott is up for re-election in 2014?

After the Shelby decision, Texas immediately implemented a voter ID law that a panel of federal judges had earlier ruled would heavily burden the poor. Redistricting maps previously passed by the Texas legislature also took effect. These redistricting maps had been blocked in 2012 by a separate panel of federal judges, who stated that the Justice Department had provided overwhelming evidence that the redistricting had discriminatory intent.

Wisconsin Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s voter ID law was blocked soon after it was enacted in 2011. It is currently the subject of two cases being heard by the Wisconsin Supreme Court and two other cases being heard in federal district court. Walker recently signed legislation eliminating early voting on the weekend.

Earlier this year, moderate Wisconsin Republican state Sen. Dale Schultz announced his retirement after 31 years of legislative service. He stated in an interview that there was no legitimate justification for some of the election reforms pushed by Wisconsin Republicans and that they had failed miserably to demonstrate massive voter fraud. Schultz said he now believes that lack of access to the polls poses a far greater threat to the integrity of the election process than voter fraud.

On Sept. 30, 2013, the Justice Department filed suit against North Carolina under Section 2 of the 1965 Act, charging that certain sections of the North Carolina voting law are in effect discriminatory, including the sections that reduce early voting days, eliminate same-day registration and require photo IDs.

Perhaps the North Carolina voter ID law will survive the legal challenges unscathed. A recent incomplete study by the State Board of Elections attempted to provide evidence of voter fraud by identifying 765 North Carolina-registered voters who had the same first and last names, birthdates and partial Social Security numbers as voters who had voted in other states in 2012. But the study has not established any actual voter fraud.

There is something profoundly un-American about restricting the rights of voters and making it more difficult for them to vote. The burden of restrictive voting laws falls most heavily on minorities, the poor and the elderly. Voter fraud is frequently the justification, as it is with the current North Carolina law. But there is strong evidence to show that these laws are often specifically designed to suppress certain groups of voters.

Ron Davis is a retired corporate attorney who resides in Flat Rock. Reach him at eeldavis@aol.com.

<p>Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was overwhelmingly reauthorized for a period of 25 years in 2006 by a Republican-controlled Congress, based on thousands of pages of testimony and supporting documentation. The reauthorization was proudly signed into law by President George W. Bush.</p><p>This section required certain states, including North Carolina, to get “preclearance” from a federal court in Washington, D.C., before implementing changes to its voting laws.</p><p>In June 2013, the conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court voted 5-4 in the case of Shelby v. Holder to rule that the “coverage formula” of Section 4(b) was outdated and unconstitutional.</p><p>On Aug. 12, 2013, less than two months after the Shelby decision, North Carolina enacted 49 pages of sweeping changes to its voting laws, parts of which some have called some of the most restrictive voting laws in the country. Although the law is frequently called a voter ID law and is touted as a law to prevent voter fraud, it covers much more than voter IDs and imposes restrictions on voting that have nothing to do with voter fraud.</p><p>Since 2010, similar laws have become pervasive in states where there is a Republican governor and a Republican-controlled legislature, particularly in states that were not covered by Section 4(b). Here are just a few of many examples:</p><p>In June 2012, the Republican majority leader of the Pennsylvania House proudly proclaimed that the voter ID law passed earlier that year would allow Gov. Mitt Romney to take Pennsylvania. That law was blocked from taking effect for the 2012 election and earlier this year was struck down by a Commonwealth court, stating that it placed heavy burdens on the elderly, the disabled and the poor and that the state failed to support its allegations of voter fraud with evidence of actual voter fraud.</p><p>Florida was notorious for long voting lines in 2012 due to shortened early voting, excessively long ballots and other legislatively imposed restrictions. It took hours to vote. A Nov. 25, 2012, article in The Palm Beach Post quoted Florida GOP officials and consultants who admitted that reducing early voting days was designed to target Democratic voters.</p><p>Florida Republican Gov. Rick Scott signed a bill in May 2013 that reversed many of his own 2011 election laws. It restored early voting days, expanded hours and polling places, allowed early voting on the Sunday before the election and limited ballot lengths. Could that be because Scott is up for re-election in 2014?</p><p>After the Shelby decision, Texas immediately implemented a voter ID law that a panel of federal judges had earlier ruled would heavily burden the poor. Redistricting maps previously passed by the Texas legislature also took effect. These redistricting maps had been blocked in 2012 by a separate panel of federal judges, who stated that the Justice Department had provided overwhelming evidence that the redistricting had discriminatory intent.</p><p>Wisconsin Republican Gov. Scott Walker's voter ID law was blocked soon after it was enacted in 2011. It is currently the subject of two cases being heard by the Wisconsin Supreme Court and two other cases being heard in federal district court. Walker recently signed legislation eliminating early voting on the weekend.</p><p>Earlier this year, moderate Wisconsin Republican state Sen. Dale Schultz announced his retirement after 31 years of legislative service. He stated in an interview that there was no legitimate justification for some of the election reforms pushed by Wisconsin Republicans and that they had failed miserably to demonstrate massive voter fraud. Schultz said he now believes that lack of access to the polls poses a far greater threat to the integrity of the election process than voter fraud.</p><p>On Sept. 30, 2013, the Justice Department filed suit against North Carolina under Section 2 of the 1965 Act, charging that certain sections of the North Carolina voting law are in effect discriminatory, including the sections that reduce early voting days, eliminate same-day registration and require photo IDs.</p><p>Perhaps the North Carolina voter ID law will survive the legal challenges unscathed. A recent incomplete study by the State Board of Elections attempted to provide evidence of voter fraud by identifying 765 North Carolina-registered voters who had the same first and last names, birthdates and partial Social Security numbers as voters who had voted in other states in 2012. But the study has not established any actual voter fraud.</p><p>There is something profoundly un-American about restricting the rights of voters and making it more difficult for them to vote. The burden of restrictive voting laws falls most heavily on minorities, the poor and the elderly. Voter fraud is frequently the justification, as it is with the current North Carolina law. But there is strong evidence to show that these laws are often specifically designed to suppress certain groups of voters.</p><p><b>Ron Davis is a retired corporate attorney who resides in Flat Rock. Reach him at eeldavis@aol.com.</p>